PDA

View Full Version : a legal analisis of the muller report intended for laymens, but based in actual law



Robot Jesus
22nd April 19, 02:31 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f71Rasj_0JY

he also does reviews of movies about the law, and those are fun to watch too.

MerkinMuffly
27th April 19, 01:50 PM
GOP = Gaslighting Obstruction Projection

Üser Friendly
28th April 19, 07:36 AM
Gahstly orrendous people

MerkinMuffly
28th April 19, 07:56 PM
Grand Old Perverts

Cullion
29th April 19, 02:16 AM
This Mueller thing is probably going nowhere. I file it in the same place I put 'brexit was a russian plot'. The centre left have gone nuts with cognitive dissonance; they cant accept that their ideas are really unpopular with the groups they claim to care about so they've started resorting to conspiracy theories.

Üser Friendly
1st May 19, 01:22 PM
This Mueller thing is probably going nowhere. I file it in the same place I put 'brexit was a russian plot'. The centre left have gone nuts with cognitive dissonance; they cant accept that their ideas are really unpopular with the groups they claim to care about so they've started resorting to conspiracy theories.

Üser Friendly
1st May 19, 01:23 PM
Gonads out Pence

MerkinMuffly
1st May 19, 01:30 PM
That was actually a good pastiche of Cullion's trolling.

Cullion
1st May 19, 03:39 PM
When the FBI agent who has slaved his guts out trying to find something to pin on Trump can't but a youtube channel run by somebody who is totally a lawyer thinks this still has mileage, you're on very shakey ground.

Guys, face it. Trump is just an unreconstructed 70s racist that lots of ordinary Americans agree with. He's not a russian spy. Get a grip.

MerkinMuffly
1st May 19, 11:24 PM
Your strawman argument is duly noted.

Üser Friendly
2nd May 19, 07:08 AM
Perhaps not a spy, but certainly a usefull idiot

Üser Friendly
2nd May 19, 07:10 AM
Gimps on PCP

Cullion
2nd May 19, 07:34 AM
Your strawman argument is duly noted.

There's no strawman in my argument.

Üser Friendly
2nd May 19, 07:50 AM
Gregarious onanite parasites

MerkinMuffly
2nd May 19, 12:45 PM
There's no strawman in my argument. Yes there is.

Üser Friendly
2nd May 19, 01:11 PM
Glad orafice penatrators

Cullion
2nd May 19, 02:41 PM
No there isn't

Üser Friendly
2nd May 19, 03:11 PM
Gay old pricks

MerkinMuffly
2nd May 19, 08:23 PM
No there isn't
Barr and Mueller are good friends, are conservative and Republican.

Üser Friendly
3rd May 19, 12:22 AM
I expect Christmas at the Barr/Mueller dinner party will be a little tense this year

MerkinMuffly
3rd May 19, 12:31 AM
New to politics are you?

Cullion
3rd May 19, 02:09 AM
Barr and Mueller are good friends, are conservative and Republican.

That doesnt mean Mueller isnt partisan against Trump.

Üser Friendly
3rd May 19, 12:21 PM
I jolly well hope he is

Trump is a terrible person

A coward, a narsicist, a liar and a cheat

His presidency will remain an indelible stain on the body politic for generations to come

Cullion
3rd May 19, 01:23 PM
yeah, he's a bit of an arsehole, but he hasn't killed as many people as Bush or Blair. The rest is hyperbole because the network's sponsors don't like his policies.

Üser Friendly
3rd May 19, 02:31 PM
I'm sure he'll claim to be the most deadliest president in history anywsy

MerkinMuffly
4th May 19, 12:31 AM
That doesnt mean Mueller isnt partisan against Trump.

Republicans in America put party before country.

Üser Friendly
4th May 19, 02:19 AM
Obama realy fucked up the GOP

Guess they just couldn't handle a black man in charge

Imagine if Hillary had got in? They'd have eaten themselves

Cullion
4th May 19, 03:49 AM
Republicans in America put party before country.

Do you remember the Republican 'never trump' movement? It didnt die when he won the presidency.

Look, America's a one party state in reality. The clintons and bushes are friends in real life.

MerkinMuffly
4th May 19, 01:56 PM
Do you remember the Republican 'never trump' movement? It didnt die when he won the presidency.

You mean Romney, Graham, et.al? Tell me how they are championing the Constitution and holding to their so-called principles.


Look, America's a one party state in reality. The clintons and bushes are friends in real life.

If you see no difference between the legacies of the Bush and Clinton families then perhaps you haven't been paying attention.

Cullion
4th May 19, 05:34 PM
Tell me all about the difference. Go on.

MerkinMuffly
4th May 19, 10:55 PM
You can crack open a book as well as anyone.

Cullion
5th May 19, 02:04 AM
You can type out an answer as well as anyone.

MerkinMuffly
5th May 19, 02:35 AM
You must be bored.

MerkinMuffly
5th May 19, 03:12 AM
https://www.debtconsolidation.com/us-debt-presidents/

Compare the Bush and Clinton numbers and lets see what kind of spin you come up with. :D

Cullion
5th May 19, 06:44 AM
It's not spin to point out that debt growth is exponential. If you're that worried about national debt growth you must hate Obama.

Üser Friendly
5th May 19, 08:44 AM
But isn't that the real irony of the dissfunctional GOP

They wrent their robes and gnashed thier teeth when 44 increased the deficit but were totaly cool about it when 45 increased it way more

Cullion
5th May 19, 09:07 AM
45 hasn't increased the overall debt more yet. look at the graph.

Üser Friendly
5th May 19, 10:32 AM
I see no graphs

Kiss me Cullion

Cullion
5th May 19, 01:23 PM
Reese's graph

MerkinMuffly
5th May 19, 11:36 PM
Cullion would make an excelllent spokeswoman for President trump. He just needs some smoky eye makeup.

According to the Treasury data, the US added $2.07 trillion — $2,065,536,336,472.90 to be exact — in new debt between Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2017, and February 11, when the country pushed past $22 trillion. (The US added another $2.8 billion through February 15, the latest daily figures available.)
https://www.progressivepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Slide5.jpg

MerkinMuffly
6th May 19, 12:06 AM
It did not entirely escape my notice that Cullion had nothing to say about Clinton's balanced budget compared to the Bush's.

Cullion
6th May 19, 03:34 AM
Cullion would make an excelllent spokeswoman for President trump. He just needs some smoky eye makeup.

According to the Treasury data, the US added $2.07 trillion — $2,065,536,336,472.90 to be exact — in new debt between Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2017, and February 11, when the country pushed past $22 trillion. (The US added another $2.8 billion through February 15, the latest daily figures available.)
https://www.progressivepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Slide5.jpg

And that's a lower rate of increase than under Obama.

Bill Clinton benefitted from fed policies he didn't create and a technological revolution and accompanying stock market bubble.

He also bombed civiliians to distract people from him fucking an intern.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
6th May 19, 09:36 AM
https://i.imgur.com/9pHIibK.png

MerkinMuffly
6th May 19, 11:50 PM
And that's a lower rate of increase than under Obama.
We were discussing Clinton VS Bush, but your whataboutismfallacy is noted.


Bill Clinton benefitted from fed policies he didn't create and a technological revolution and accompanying stock market bubble. Your special pleading fallacy is noted.


He also bombed civiliians to distract people from him fucking an intern.
Your red-herring fallacy is noted.

Cullion
7th May 19, 02:34 AM
I already discussed Clinton vs Bush. The Clinton era was a fed-caused bubble that inevitably had to deflate. Remember Greenspan's comments about 'irrational exuberance'as he pumped stimulus into the system to fight the asian crisis?
Trump is going to have to deal with the same kind of deflatiin at some point; the aftermath of the 2008 bailouts

MerkinMuffly
8th May 19, 03:17 AM
Greenspan is one of the greatest frauds in history.
Watching him play dumb in front of Congress was disgusting.
Trump and his band of crooks are setting us up for another heist using all the same failed tactics and policies.
Deregulation and putting America farther into debt by transferring more wealth to the top 1% has nothing to do with the bailouts, but cool story, bro.

Üser Friendly
8th May 19, 11:53 AM
I don't believe 45 and his inner circle are that well organised

They're just Forrest Gumping from one crisis to the next, all the while praying they don't end up in clink getting butt raped by Bubba

MerkinMuffly
8th May 19, 02:02 PM
Trump is what is colloquially known as a 'useful idiot'. His cronies are just running through the store in a RL game of Supermarket Sweep grabbing whatever goodies they can and overturning carts to block their political foes. Dems are too worried about getting votes and are promising that everyone gets to run through the store. It's a shit sandwich no matter how you look at it.

Cullion
9th May 19, 03:15 AM
Greenspan is one of the greatest frauds in history.
Watching him play dumb in front of Congress was disgusting.
Trump and his band of crooks are setting us up for another heist using all the same failed tactics and policies.
Deregulation and putting America farther into debt by transferring more wealth to the top 1% has nothing to do with the bailouts, but cool story, bro.

Look at the graph. It's a simple exponential growth curve. The same kind of shape produced by compounding interest. Do you really believe that your choice of whitehouse figurehead makes much difference one way or the other? If a democrat comes after Trump they'll look even worse. Not because they're a democrat, but because *this is just going to get worse*.

The policy changes needed to stop that happening are completely outside of the mainstream of 'allowed' opinion. Trump's tax cuts do not just return more money to the 1%.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
9th May 19, 09:49 AM
Trump's tax cuts do not just return more money to the 1%

What else do they do Cullionz?

MerkinMuffly
9th May 19, 12:35 PM
What else do they do Cullionz?

Here's what else they do...
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9vH2-Cu-UOE/WgI2Kt7Di4I/AAAAAAAAX2M/VRGEvkfTOlUPZhrXWIQ4RBqmwCy9Ng0aACLcBGAs/s640/GOP2017taxplan.jpg

Cullion
9th May 19, 01:45 PM
You're using a political campaign poster from somebody's opponent as a source.

Cullion
9th May 19, 01:47 PM
Have your taxes gone up Reese?

MerkinMuffly
10th May 19, 01:07 PM
You're using a political campaign poster from somebody's opponent as a source.

You are free to counter with one of the POTUS' retweets.



Have your taxes gone up Reese?

Up about 10g from last year, although I didn't do a detailed analasys as to exactly what factors triggered the changes. I know the GOP bill erased a lot of deductions.

MerkinMuffly
10th May 19, 01:55 PM
Oh, I almost forgot...
Here's an article for Doofa with lots of graphs:

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-tax-plan-consequences/

Cullion
10th May 19, 03:16 PM
Distribution of Trump Tax Cuts Favors Wealthiest
On average, in 2018, taxes declined for everyone, but top groups got the biggest benefit


Your own source says taxes went down for everybody. The reason the wealthiest got the biggest reductions is that they are the ones who pay most of the tax and carry everybody else. They're not going to hide the money in suitcases, they're going to invest and spend that money.

MerkinMuffly
11th May 19, 03:27 AM
Your own source says taxes went down for everybody on average.

Perhaps you need a nap.

Cullion
11th May 19, 04:47 AM
from your link above



Distribution of Trump Tax Cuts Favors Wealthiest
On average, in 2018, taxes declined for everyone, but top groups got the biggest benefit

MerkinMuffly
13th May 19, 03:06 AM
from your link above

"On average" is a qualifier that is making you look very foolish right now.

Did you start drinking again or has Josh hijacked your account?

Cullion
13th May 19, 02:16 PM
Neither. 'On average' in the article makes it very clear that even the poorest benefit from the cuts 'on average'. It's just their average cut was lower than the wealthiest.

You seem to have worked yourself up into a rage over Trump for as little reason as you've enraged yourself against Jesusianity. Relax.

MerkinMuffly
13th May 19, 11:58 PM
Not everyone benefits. You can keep repeating yourself all you like.

Cullion
14th May 19, 07:55 AM
Not 'everybody' benefits from a tax rise, either. However, on average, people from all socio-economic strata have benefitted from this cut.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
14th May 19, 08:57 AM
So half the people didnt?

Üser Friendly
14th May 19, 04:13 PM
Mean, median or mode?

Cullion
14th May 19, 04:49 PM
So half the people didnt?

Sure. But then if we raise the tax again, every socioeconomic group is worse off. on average. The poorest group, on average, got wealthier, and if you reversed the policy Reese didn't like, they'd get poorer.

You see, this arcane concept of average outcomes works for policies Reese likes, too.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
15th May 19, 03:41 AM
Wouldnt it be better to show the stats as distributions eg number of people in each economic band vs tax benefit? Averages in this case seem a very divisive measure.

Jean-Paul Sartre
15th May 19, 03:44 AM
You see, this arcane concept of average outcomes works for policies Reese likes, too.

http://i.imgur.com/IewxJJ9.jpg

Cullion
15th May 19, 06:11 AM
Wouldnt it be better to show the stats as distributions eg number of people in each economic band vs tax benefit? Averages in this case seem a very divisive measure.

You're already confused, if we complicate it more you'll get completely lost.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
15th May 19, 09:30 AM
The use of averages is the confusing factor. It allows for vague "convincing to whoever wants to believe my bullshit" conclusions.

Jean-Paul Sartre
15th May 19, 10:46 AM
I think the top 2 percent or so should be subject to a public results poll every year.

There is at least some part of them who believe in higher taxes for the uber wealthy to help the poor as they talk about it in interviews, those who champion this belief can be taxed at a higher rate. The rest can keep the current rate.

Cullion
15th May 19, 01:10 PM
The use of averages is the confusing factor. It allows for vague "convincing to whoever wants to believe my bullshit" conclusions.

All social questions are answered statistically. There's nothing vague about it. The poorest segment in the study did indeed get richer. If you want to confound it by indignantly pointing out it's 'only on average!' then all social questions become scientifically unanswerable right away. And to be intellectually honest you'd have to do this with polices you like too.

Cutting welfare to zero would make the poorest poorer *on average*, but for some it would be just the kick up the arse they need to get a job and become upwardly mobile. All of a sudden you're okay with averages, yes?

Hush child.

Üser Friendly
15th May 19, 03:15 PM
Sure. But then if we raise the tax again, every socioeconomic group is worse off. on average. The poorest group, on average, got wealthier, and if you reversed the policy Reese didn't like, they'd get poorer.

You see, this arcane concept of average outcomes works for policies Reese likes, too.

We are only worse off paying higher taxes if the corrupt or incompetant gvt fritter it away or feather their and their cronies nests

Higher taxes in the hands of a profesional and competant gvt increase everybodies standard of living

You are just jaded by genetations of idiots in charge, culminating in brexit suicide

Cullion
15th May 19, 03:32 PM
So you're a big advocate of massive increases in corporation tax in Ireland then? You supported those EU fines and would like to see more, targettes at the companies that most of Dublin's well paid white collar work depends on?
You think Switzerland and Singapore and Hong Kong have worse standards of living than the UK?

Cullion
15th May 19, 03:34 PM
Perhaps you'd like French rates of youth unemployment too?

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
16th May 19, 01:18 AM
All social questions are answered statistically. There's nothing vague about it.

I think we both know thats bullshit.


The poorest segment in the study did indeed get richer. If you want to confound it by indignantly pointing out it's 'only on average!' then all social questions become scientifically unanswerable right away.

They would be open to better analysis.



And to be intellectually honest you'd have to do this with polices you like too.

I dont have a problem with that.


Cutting welfare to zero would make the poorest poorer *on average*, but for some it would be just the kick up the arse they need to get a job and become upwardly mobile. All of a sudden you're okay with averages, yes?

Still not its a bullshit measure for such a complex phenomena. Unless of course you're trying to hide something.

Üser Friendly
16th May 19, 01:28 AM
So you're a big advocate of massive increases in corporation tax in Ireland then? You supported those EU fines and would like to see more, targettes at the companies that most of Dublin's well paid white collar work depends on?
You think Switzerland and Singapore and Hong Kong have worse standards of living than the UK?

Corporations should pay their fair share and current level is ok except the corporation have the accountant power to avoid a lot of those as well

Do Switzaland and Singapore have a higher standard of living than Sweden and Denmark?

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
16th May 19, 04:32 AM
Switzerland does

Cullion
16th May 19, 02:27 PM
Corporations should pay their fair share and current level is ok

The EU doesn't think so. Your corporation tax rates are a fraction of the US rates which Moleculo is complaining about.

Cullion
16th May 19, 02:30 PM
I think we both know thats bullshit.

It's not bullshit.



Still not its a bullshit measure for such a complex phenomena. Unless of course you're trying to hide something.

There's no other way of measuring these things. They never effect all members of a population in exactly the same way. All economics and quantitative social science relies on statistical aggregates. In every population some people in a socioeconomic strata will benefit and some lose out from any given policy, all you can say is whether members of a group gained 'on average'.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
17th May 19, 05:26 AM
It's not bullshit.

Use of averages IS bullshit in this context that's why politicians like to use them




There's no other way of measuring these things.

Are you saying that averages are the only statistical tool? LOL WTF?!? I mean you're supposed to be like clev0r & stuff init... LOLLIPOP!!


They never effect all members of a population in exactly the same way.

You dont say!


All economics and quantitative social science relies on statistical aggregates.

:o if only statisticians had realized this earlier maybe they would have formulated methods to analyse complex data sets :o


In every population some people in a socioeconomic strata will benefit and some lose out from any given policy, all you can say is whether members of a group gained 'on average'.

aaaaaaaaaaand no that's not all you can say. For instance you could look at the distributions of benefits.........

Cullion
17th May 19, 04:17 PM
Use of averages IS bullshit in this context that's why politicians like to use them

What the fuck are you talking about? All anybody ever has here is averages.



Are you saying that averages are the only statistical tool? LOL WTF?!? I mean you're supposed to be like clev0r & stuff init... LOLLIPOP!!

In this context, yes.



aaaaaaaaaaand no that's not all you can say. For instance you could look at the distributions of benefits.........

Distribution over what axis? *these figures already break down by economic strata and show benefits in all groups*

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
20th May 19, 09:40 AM
Averages are only really useful if they are over normal distributions of data. If there's high kurtosis or skew then averages are not a useful statistic unless you are trying to hide something.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
20th May 19, 09:53 AM
An easy example for you (as you seem to be having a problem),

Take the following samples : 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1000000

Now does the average tell you anything meaningful about the underlying data?

Cullion
20th May 19, 12:28 PM
Median or mean?

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
20th May 19, 02:59 PM
Either's pretty useless, mode on the other hand......

Cullion
20th May 19, 04:03 PM
So which people do you think got poorer as a result of their taxes being cut?

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
21st May 19, 04:09 AM
I dont know I dont have access to the raw data.

I think it would be interesting to see histograms based on population v benefit. I think stratifying based on economic class does have some benefit but obscures an important factor, ie how many people are getting how much. Also break downs of population v benefit within social classes would be helpful.

The tacit assumption is that all these histograms are normally distributed but who knows without access to tha data?

Cullion
21st May 19, 02:18 PM
Everything you just said is irrelevant if you can't think of a single example of somebody who's disposable income went down because their taxes were reduced.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
21st May 19, 02:49 PM
What have I said that is inconsistent with my analysis of your poor methodology?

Cullion
21st May 19, 03:12 PM
You haven't done an analysis. You just got so lost spouting about averages that you forgot that it's irrelevant to the original point; nobody has lost out and every socio-economic group has gained.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
21st May 19, 04:42 PM
.......doesnt necessarily equate to most people have benefited. Some people in certain groups may have benefited significantly more than others to such an extent that your averages could easily be very skewed.

And this....


nobody has lost out

...is not justified by your "statistical aggregates".

Jeez........ please dont go into machine learning you might end up creating Doofa.

Cullion
21st May 19, 04:47 PM
This is random gibberish. Nobody lost out, people in all groups benefitted. You don't even have a credible mechanism to explain why two different people earning minimum wage would experience significantly different effects from the tax cut. Quite absurd.

I don't think you're even on the first rung of being qualified to talk to me about machine learning, Max.

Üser Friendly
21st May 19, 05:34 PM
You haven't done an analysis. You just got so lost spouting about averages that you forgot that it's irrelevant to the original point; nobody has lost out and every socio-economic group has gained.

Perhaps you could post your analysis

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
22nd May 19, 04:16 AM
God™ damn it!! I know a random forest when I see one!

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
1st June 19, 05:56 AM
Distributional analyses of the tax change suggested that the tax revision favored higher-income taxpayers, in part because most of the tax cut benefited corporations and in part because the individual income tax cut largely went to higher-income individuals. During the debate about taxes, however, arguments were made that these corporate tax cuts would benefit workers due to growth in investment and the capital stock.

....

The Department of Labor reports that average weekly wages of production and nonsupervisory workers were $742 in 2017 and $766 in 2018. Wages, assuming full-time work, increased by $1,248 annually. But this number must account for inflation and growth that would otherwise have occurred regardless of the tax change. The nominal growth rate in wages was 3.2%, but adjusting for the GDP pricedeflator, real wages increased by 1.2%. This growth is smaller than overall growth in labor compensation and indicates that ordinary workers had very little growth in wage rates.

"The Economic Effects of the 2017 Tax Revision: Preliminary Observations" Congressional Research Service 5/5/2019 (https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20190522_R45736_8a1214e903ee2b719e00731791d60f26d7 5d35f4.pdf)

Long term impact is still uncertain of course but early indicators are pretty much as the cynics amoungst us thought they'd be i.e. its another rip off.

1CWJWcd7qJs

Cullion
1st June 19, 09:11 AM
That isn't what it says. It says that people who pay more tax gained more than people who pay less tax (which is kind of obvious). It doesn't say that people who pay less tax got poorer.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
2nd June 19, 07:31 AM
Have you read the report in full (you wont find many averages in there due to the researchers not being statitically challenged)?

The indictors show that the much hyped & rebranded trickle down hasn't actually happened & that the primary beneficiaries are (suprise suprise) the already weathly. Rather than address the widening financial gap the measures appear (for the moment at least) to be making the situation worse with a dispropotionate about of money being absorbed by the rich, again.

Cullion
2nd June 19, 07:51 AM
There are several averages on the first page.

You always combine your dumbest statements with an attempt to sound condescending.

Real wages are up, and the poor keep more of them. If it's only relative wealth you're concerned about, I simply don't share your moral framework.

Thatcher was right about this: -

rv5t6rC6yvg

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
2nd June 19, 09:33 AM
Well she was right about the Euro but as ever she never got the very real social consequences of the widening gap whether it be relative or not.

Cullion
2nd June 19, 02:05 PM
What social consequences ?

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
2nd June 19, 02:28 PM
The emergence of far right populism for one.

Cullion
2nd June 19, 02:50 PM
That's not a consequence of thatcherism, that's a reaction against self-absorbed middle class liberals.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
3rd June 19, 12:59 AM
I think Thatcherism played its part & opened the way for far right politics in the UK. The complacent middle classes play a role too but ultimately its percieved inequality that fuels such movements.

Cullion
3rd June 19, 06:27 AM
When you say 'far right', what do you mean exactly? UKIP don't get many votes any more precisely because of what they've become.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
3rd June 19, 01:54 PM
I think Farage is far right regardless of his spin.

Üser Friendly
3rd June 19, 02:57 PM
I reckon Nige is just in it for the roubles

Cullion
3rd June 19, 03:16 PM
I think Farage is far right regardless of his spin.

Far right = unreconstructed Thatcherite?

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
3rd June 19, 03:47 PM
Far right as in, would be happy if we lived under a Dictator, far right.

I think he hides it well in his public persona but I dont buy it (unlike Aaron Banks).

Cullion
3rd June 19, 04:08 PM
I think that's nonsense. Completely without evidence.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
4th June 19, 01:18 AM
I dont care.

Cullion
4th June 19, 03:40 AM
As long as you accept you're just making things up without any basis.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
4th June 19, 04:34 PM
Sure I'm OK with that in this instance, I think he's crypto-fascist.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
4th June 19, 04:37 PM
I think Trump is too & Boris & Gove & Murdock.

Cullion
4th June 19, 04:58 PM
I think you're a crypto-fascist. I don't have to explain why.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
5th June 19, 01:00 AM
No you dont. I dont think you are though.

Cullion
5th June 19, 09:32 AM
I would actually be a lib dem voter these days if it wasn't for the brexit thing.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
5th June 19, 12:15 PM
I voted Green the last few times it seems to piss people off the most.

Üser Friendly
5th June 19, 02:00 PM
Greem piss?

See a doctor... a real doctor

Robot Jesus
5th June 19, 05:55 PM
took some vitamins once that did that, that was about 15 years ago to no ill effects.

Cullion
6th June 19, 09:41 AM
Voting Green is something you never have to feel guilty about. When they get more votes than expected it's like watching the Ewoks destroy the AT-ST with their log-trap, you know?

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
11th June 19, 12:45 PM
https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/64218385_2234317719996857_5286603072015958016_n.jp g?_nc_cat=104&_nc_eui2=AeH5FyA0yLzZKsu7tf5IOlb1qYMyRi-eIweO4yvpaczm7TGB8WpmQcdroH9Mopv-564zijgrrCNt32G1zh_nggycrAptKfEEU5B8bnKGV0wWww&_nc_ht=scontent-lhr3-1.xx&oh=1e0f7ac17a3d2cbb3973b126788b172a&oe=5D965C05

Üser Friendly
11th June 19, 01:30 PM
That's your dad thst is

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
12th June 19, 01:13 AM
That's ur Mom

Üser Friendly
12th June 19, 02:04 AM
You mean...we are brothers!?!

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
12th June 19, 04:45 AM
eek!

Üser Friendly
12th June 19, 08:25 AM
Finaly we have a doctor in the family

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
12th June 19, 12:56 PM
if Cullion was a meme

Üser Friendly
12th June 19, 02:21 PM
Cullion is out of the family with his rebelious opinions

Cullion
13th June 19, 09:34 AM
It's not up to you, son.

Üser Friendly
14th June 19, 12:48 AM
You're dead to me

Robot Jesus
25th June 19, 10:54 AM
When the FBI agent who has slaved his guts out trying to find something to pin on Trump can't but a youtube channel run by somebody who is totally a lawyer thinks this still has mileage, you're on very shakey ground.

Guys, face it. Trump is just an unreconstructed 70s racist that lots of ordinary Americans agree with. He's not a russian spy. Get a grip.


the whole point is that Muller legally cannot ever pin anything on Trump while he's president. It's the official policy of the DOJ and his hands are ties because it it a matter for impeachment or for after he leaves office.

Muller said the same thing before congress.


The report had the legal ability to find Trump not guilty, or not "not guilty". it found him most assuredly not "not guilty".


Have you been following this at all?

Cullion
25th June 19, 05:56 PM
God you're dumb.

Trump isn't guilty of anything at all. Nothing.

Üser Friendly
26th June 19, 12:32 AM
Not yet, since he has not be tried in a court of law, but the evidence of obstruction is laid out in the report as was the Special Council's opinion that 45 was not exonerated

Were he not POTUS he would most likely be in jail right now and will most likely end up there after he leaves office

Cullion
26th June 19, 03:04 AM
Fantasy. They've got nothing on him and he's going to win a second term

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
26th June 19, 05:14 AM
We should listen to Cullion he was right about Trump getting elected the first time

Robot Jesus
27th June 19, 11:37 AM
Fantasy. They've got nothing on him and he's going to win a second term



the current argument against obstruction is that it's not obstruction if you get away with it. You don't make that argument if you have a better one.


as for winning 2020, every election since 2016 has had Republicans getting the shit kicked out of them. Democrats dominated both the special elections and the midterms, in the latter seeing victory in 66% of senate races and seeing the biggest house flip in midterm history. It also should be noted that 2016 had a somewhat low turnout, and 2018 was the second highest turnout for a midterm on record.

High turnout tends to hurt incumbents, and also tends to hurt conservatives. Even if you say that the polls are all cooked by the international globalist conspiracy, those numbers are not in contention.

Cullion
27th June 19, 12:47 PM
the current argument against obstruction is that it's not obstruction if you get away with it. You don't make that argument if you have a better one.


It's not obstruction when there are no grounds to charge you with it.

Robot Jesus
27th June 19, 02:35 PM
asking Comey to end the investigation, and shortly afterwards firing him. would you count that as an obstruction to the investigation.

Cullion
27th June 19, 04:20 PM
No becase the investigation was just a clumsy political smear without basis. Pure showboating and abuse of office by political opponents.

Robot Jesus
27th June 19, 06:27 PM
when one is being investigated is it his decision that he should be investigated?

Üser Friendly
28th June 19, 02:58 AM
It's not obstruction when there are no grounds to charge you with it.

Muller was clear in his report. There were at least 10 incidents that met the criteria for obstruction of justice

45 could not be indicted due to DoJ policy on indicting a sitting POTUS

Are you getting your talking points from Fox News?

Cullion
28th June 19, 04:20 PM
All they'd have to do would be to impeach him, but they know that won't work either. Muller has wasted years and come up empty.

Üser Friendly
29th June 19, 01:20 PM
The Dem house has the numbers to impeach, but the Senate has not the balls to convict as the GOP ate currently have a majority

The Dems have to weigh up the potential consiquences of impeachment

Billy boy Clinton was impeached but not convicted and went on to win re-election, though his 'high crimes and misdemeanors' pale into insignifigance compared to Donny boy Trump

Cullion
29th June 19, 08:40 PM
Not actually true. Trump hasn't had anybody killed to distract people from his affairs.

Üser Friendly
30th June 19, 03:46 AM
Nor is he being accused of murder

However his bro Vlad would be more than willing to nerve gas folk to help him out